• Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

    Exactly

    Everyone can agree on something being an issue but there needs to be consensus on solutions

    Personally I think Kamala Harris is a viable plan. She’s already VP, she’s instantly recognizable, and she’s also polling well against trump.

    And honestly I’m starting to think the plan might be something along the lines of “Keep Biden in until after the election then scoot Harris in under the 25th amendment”

    • Wojwo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know if she can. There’s still a lot of latent racism and misogyny in American culture, and she’d have to overcome both. Bidens old, but he’s a he and the color of skin that’s important, for some reason. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I think she could beat a Jeb Bush hands down, but Trump has a knack for flaming those racist and misogynistic feelings in people that aren’t usually that way.

      • Truck_kun@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also, she is the VP of the incumbent administration. Any complaints people have about Biden, other than his personal age, also can be applied to her. Economy? Immigration? Isreal/Gaza? All Harris’ administration. Doesn’t matter that she has little input or control of any of those, she is the VP, Trump and Conservatives will blame her all the way until election day, and Fox/Conservative media will be there to parrot and distribute the word.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          She can just say Biden made the decisions, because it’s true. Forget how Fox propagandizes things. If you think they have that power to shape reality, we’ve already lost. Everyone else will take a statement of “that was something I disagreed with, but it was Joe’s choice” at face value, because we all know VPs are powerless.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s amusing to see people ponder whether a black person could become president, or use that as essentially an argument against running a black candidate.

        You’re about 16 years late to the party.

        Are there LOTS of racists and misogynists out there? Yeah, absolutely. But if you discount candidates based on what you think the bigots will do, you’re just preemptively doing their discrimination for them.

        Saying, “I don’t think we should run a black female candidate because of the racists”, and saying, “I don’t think we should run a black female candidate because I’m racist” has the same net effect.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          There is a precedent of a black president, but there is still no precedent of a woman president… and the reaction to a female candidate after Obama, was Trump.

          Running a black woman candidate, is both unprecedented for the misogynism AND for the combination. The barely 8 year old precedent of voters picking an obvious con artist over a white woman, points to misogynism being still a serious issue in the US.

          IMHO, the best that could happen would be having Biden re-elected, then him deciding he’s no longer capacitated, and the job defaulting onto Harris. But if Biden can’t make it to the polls… well, SOL.

          • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The reaction to Hillary Clinton was Trump. A wicker chair painted red would have beaten Hillary. Holding her up as indicative of the general sentiment towards women as leaders is about as far from accurate interpretation of 2016 as you can get. Notice how many people are suggesting Whitmer or even Michele Obama to run (nevermind Harris, obviously), but no one is suggesting Clinton?

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Heh, not sure about a wicker chair (LOL)… she’s 76 now, so definitely not an option. Maybe I didn’t follow US politics too closely in 2016, were there other women running in the primaries back then?

              • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Not in 2016.

                In 2019, Elizabeth Warren was leading in the primaries (and both she and Sanders were ahead of Biden), until Super Tuesday when a bunch of the centrist candidates dropped out together and jointly endorsed Biden, in order for them not to go to a contested convention.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        She is polling the same as Biden was, as of today.

        Given the remaining months until the election, she has plenty of time to raise her status, assuming she doesn’t footgun herself.

        My biggest concern is her running mate. Being strategic, I’d say Buttigieg is the way to go, since he’s also already part of the current admin, and is an excellent orator and debater.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Keep Biden in until after the election then scoot Harris in under the 25th amendment”

      That’s the worst possible plan, IMO. Biden can lead, I would be fine with him being president for another 4 years. The issue is he can’t win against Donald Trump. He was behind in all swing states, and that was before the debate, multiple gaffes and speech mistakes, moments of confusion and freezing, etc…

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Democrats need to be winning by 3-4% in the popular vote to overcome the electoral college bias. Maybe he’s squeaking by in the popular vote isn’t enough to win.

          who can else beat him at this point, but the Democrat who actually beat him four years ago

          50 other Democrats, like Joe Biden himself said. This isn’t a close election because people love Joe Biden, it’s because they hate Donald Trump. Trump isn’t some electoral force of nature, he’s a weak candidate who’s had the fortune to run against another weak candidate (now and in 2016). There isn’t a big focus on “double-haters” in normal elections. Most people don’t want these candidates.